04/20/2004 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Hearing of 4/20/2004 ,~ Councilman McKay asked Mr. Bruehler if this was the first time the rezoning issue has come up. Mr. Bruehler said it came up with the oil change business. They then agreed to split that plot, and the back part of it is residential. Christine Remella Burk, 4434 Ranchview Avenue. Last week a neighborhood meeting was held, and Mr. Duane Limpert was present. He informed the residents that 70% of the residents from West Ranchview, Ranchview and Timber Cover were for this ordinance. She felt as though that statistic was bogus. So on her own, she went out and did a survey. The results of her survey show that 71% are against this ordinance. She could not write down the comments because she could not censor them. A lot of people are upset. Please take note of that because the voters will on re-election. Councilman Limpert said he believed his comment was that, at the meeting with the developer and West Ranchview residents, his sense was that about 70% of the residents at that meeting were definitely in favor of it. Speaking for some members of the audience, Mrs. Remella Burk disagreed and said that was not the comment he had made. That is the reason she went out to do her own survey and found 71 % against. She does not want Ganley in her neighborhood. They have to do business, but not in her backyard. Her property value is going to go down because of negative curbside appeal. She doesn't want the noise, the lights, the pollution, and the sirens going off She does not want her neighborhood to look like a car rest stop. She is concerned about the maintenance. Gamey can pretty much do what they want because they have been able to do it. However, it's not all Ganley's fault. She encourages Council to come into the neighborhood and talk to the residents-feel their concerns, see their concerns, see what they are up against and see how bad it looks on West Ranchview. Gamey does not maintain their property, and the city doesn't do anything about it. Councilman Nashar requested that a representative from Ganley come forward to address this issue. Jordan Burns, 3733 Park East Drive, Cleveland, Ohio, the attorney for Ganley Motors, said he would like to address some of the concerns that had been raised. He displayed what he said was a little bit different site plan than was displayed earlier by Councilman Gareau. His explanation will spill over a bit into the development plan for this site, which is perhaps important to take into consideration in conjunction with this rezoning proposal because it was the proposed development of a new facility on this site that led to the proposal to rezone a portion of the property. As was indicated earlier, there have been a number of meetings with city officials regarding this proposal, including Planning Commission meetings, meetings of the Architectural Review Board and meetings with residents of Ranchview whose property abuts the proposed redeveloped property. With respect to those residents who are on the west side of the property here, what Ganley has proposed to provide them in conjunction with this rezoning and development plan is this: there is an area approximately 19 '/z feet from the back property lines of these residents' backyards into the Gamey property. Gamey has agreed to essentially give to those residents an easement so that they can have their yards effectively extended by that 19 '/s foot distance, which in some cases will double the usable